Presentation on theme: "Canada-U.S. Relations in the Arctic : Conflict and Cooperation Stéphane Roussel (UQAM) Conference Northern Sovereignty and Political Geography in North."— Presentation transcript:
Canada-U.S. Relations in the Arctic : Conflict and Cooperation Stéphane Roussel (UQAM) Conference Northern Sovereignty and Political Geography in North America Association for Canadian Studies in the United States Washington D.C., June 14 th, 2010
An Institutionalist point of view Institutions are the solution in Cnd-US relations Historical foundations Conflict resolution Cooperation Different proposal are floating in the air
Sovereignty, Identity, or Nation-Building? The perfect political storm Building an International identity Building a national identity National unity/national building “Concealing” a continentalist/conservative agenda
How? PUTTING SOVEREIGNTY ASIDE (for now), agree to disagree. Incremental approach. Focusing on « technical », non political, and non controversial problems (Search and rescue, traffic monitoring, pollution control, etc.).
Who? Unilateral? –Addressing public sensitivities toward Sovereignty –Local issues (ex.: human security) –Limited resources Multilateral? –Existing Institutions (AC) and Networks (ICC) –Informal institutions (Illulisat, Chelsea) –Common problems. The Arctic is indivisible –But many problem are local
NATOBarents Sea Council Arctic Council (1996) UNCLOSInuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) NORAD CANADA 1949Obs.19962003Nunavut, Inuvialuit (TNO), Nunalivut, Nunatsiavut 1957 USA 1949Obs.1996N-m.Alaska1957 RUSSIA N-m.19961997Yupik (Siberia)N-m. SWEDEN N-m.1996 N-m. NORWAY 19491996 N-m. DENMARK 194919962004GreenlandN-m. ICELAND 194919961985N-m.
Who? (2) Bilateral? (in North America) –Strong historical record of cooperation –Strong historical division between Europe and North America –Many issues are local or regional rather than “global” –Interoperability –Small number of players –US Reluctance for multilateral agreement
Institutional framework Three basic models of institutions: 1. Military Command 2. Civilian (public or private) authority 3. Joint Commission
Joint Commission Permanent Joint Board on Defence (1940) International Joint Commission (1909) Officials (civ/mil) but non political Producing recommendations Large spectrum of issues covered A Permanent Joint Board of the North? An IJC for the North?
Advantages Creating an « habit of cooperation » Confidence Setting the table for a settlement of the bilateral conflicts in the North
Presentation based on: Samantha L. ARNOLD and Stéphane ROUSSEL, “Expanding the Canada-US Security Regime to the North?”, in Sven G. HOLTSMARK and Brooke A. SMITH- WINDSOR (eds.), Security Prospects in the High North: Geostrategic Thaw or Freeze?, Rome, NATO Defense College Paper no 7, 2009: 58-80.